Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Oct 28, 2026 21:17

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily Telegraph

Quote:
Driving test age 'will be raised to 18'
By Laura Clout
Last Updated: 9:22am GMT 27/12/2007

The minimum legal driving age will effectively rise to 18 as part of reforms to cut the number of deaths caused by novice drivers, according to reports.

Learners will still be granted a provisional driving licence at age 17, but must then complete a 12-month training period before they can take their test and drive alone, under the new plans.

The move has the backing of road safety groups and insurers who hope it will cut the number of accidents caused by young drivers.

Research by the Department for Transport (DfT) suggests that a 12-month learning period would prevent up to 1,000 deaths and serious injuries and up to 7,000 casualties a year.

The proposals, which the Daily Mail newspaper claims will be published in a consultation document in the New Year, will place greater emphasis on avoiding reckless behaviour, hazard perception and "over confidence".

A DfT spokesman declined to comment on the reports, saying that the details of the consultation document had not been decided.

Under the reported plans, learner drivers will first be required to master a series of skills - such as parallel parking, reversing round a corner, and the three-point turn - which will be signed off by a qualified instructor in a log-book.

The practical test, which will become more difficult than the current one, will concentrate on situations where accidents are most likely to happen, such as junctions and roundabouts.

Most people will spend at least 500 hours mastering the key skills. Under the current arrangement, some new drivers pass their test after spending only 100 hours behind the wheel.

Young male drivers are the biggest cause of death of young women in Britain. Almost one in two drivers killed at night is under 25.

Britain is one of very few EU countries to allow 17-year-olds to hold a full driving licence. Ministers considered raising the minimum age five years ago but backed down because of concerns that it would hit the rural economy. Around 70 per cent of 17-year-old motorists drive themselves to work.

Under a separate review, the Government will also look at a zero alcohol limit for newly-qualified drivers of all ages for a year after they pass the test.

Novice drivers found behind the wheel with alcohol in their blood would be forced to retake their test.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:06 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4815
Location: Essex
<sigh>


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:18 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
They could raise it to 118 for all the difference it will make.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
I’m all for this, however I hope it’s all backed up by good quality instructors and not number based. Just out of curiosity, what checks are done on driving instructors? When I took my test (a long time ago) I always considered my instructor to be a good teacher.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:31 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4815
Location: Essex
Dixie wrote:
I’m all for this, however I hope it’s all backed up by good quality instructors and not number based. Just out of curiosity, what checks are done on driving instructors? When I took my test (a long time ago) I always considered my instructor to be a good teacher.


Interesting.

I agree with the "good teacher" philosophy, but why delay it by a year?

I would prefer to lower it, but to taper the way up to the lambos rather than permit them on the 17th birthday to those with rich parents.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 17:56
Posts: 189
Location: Essex
Roger wrote:
<sigh>


QFT.

This is just another case of, "The answer's a bigger restriction. What's the question?"

How about encouraging more use of pass plus and more lessons in general after taking the driving test? And how about encouraging better attitudes from those who feel like they can be boy racers after passing?

Raising the age will not make a difference to the lack of experience in young drivers - probably once of the biggest reasons for accidents.


And anyway hasn't raising the age to 18 been debated for about the last 20 - 30 years? I'll see it when I believe it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:37 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4815
Location: Essex
Quote:
QFT

??

Quote:
This is just another case of, "The answer's a bigger restriction. What's the question?"

How about encouraging more use of pass plus and more lessons in general after taking the driving test? And how about encouraging better attitudes from those who feel like they can be boy racers after passing?

Raising the age will not make a difference to the lack of experience in young drivers - probably once of the biggest reasons for accidents.

:yesyes:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
The Mail article mentions physiological immaturity issues with young people's brains which make them incapable of being safe. This seems strange as, from accident figures, it doesn't affect females the same as males. Obviously, different ages need to be set for men and women - I can see this going down well.

So, we are going to have a system where these "immature" males can join the army and die for us, marry and have children - but not drive.

The Law of Unintended Consequences will mean that the most likely outcome will be more driving by youngsters with no licence, tax, insurance ...

Just compare the logic of this argument with the Government's wisdom on sex education. You want to prevent irresponsible sex by the young so you give them the maximum education on the subject as early as possible. This doesn't work either.

Why? Because young people ARE irresponsible and ignore advice/training/restrictions and always will.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 14:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
This is a poor solution with unrealistic aims.

The problem: A high percentage of new drivers (of which a very high percentage are young) crash within the first 2 years of driving.

The governments solution: Make the age limit higher

Governments lofty aims: Cut fatalities by UP TO 1,000!! That's 1/3 of all road deaths.

Likely outcome: No real difference. Less 17 year olds will be involved in accidents, more 18 year olds will instead. More uninsured, unlicensed & untaxed young drivers.

The SHOULD BE solution: Make the driving test more comprehensive & make becoming an instructor tougher (I ditched my instructor after 6 lessons cos she was so awful, my dad taught me after this)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 14:14 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
malcolmw wrote:
Just compare the logic of this argument with the Government's wisdom on sex education. You want to prevent irresponsible sex by the young so you give them the maximum education on the subject as early as possible. This doesn't work either.

Why? Because young people ARE irresponsible and ignore advice/training/restrictions and always will.

That's true to a large extent, but with regard to sex education not being very effective, it's as much due to a total lack of "joined-up thinking"... According to a teacher friend, she has to teach about sex, but is not permitted to teach about contraception or sexually-transmitted infections. Mad!

(Edited to add) The fact that our social security system makes single-teenage-parenthood a viable career option for many girls doesn't exactly help either!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 14:34 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
I tend to take the view (which I've expressed before) that the more difficult, expensive and time-consuming you make it for young people to become qualified drivers, the worse the problem will become.

More people will be tempted to drive illegally, and the ever-smaller number who do qualify will perceive themselves as an élite group and may feel more inclined to demonstrate this to their non-driving peers. They will also have to carry a high share of the driving burden in their social group. If most of them drive and they take their turn the comparison between them can help improve standards across the board.

The proportion of under-21s learning to drive has halved over the past 20 years, yet the casualty rate hasn't. It may seem paradoxical, but I believe that if a high proportion of young people learn to drive it has a critical mass effect which is a restraint on the behaviour of all.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 15:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
malcolmw wrote:
So, we are going to have a system where these "immature" males can join the army and die for us, marry and have children - but not drive.

They will be able to legally drive at the very same time when they can legally purchase and drink alcohol - sounds like a great combination to me!

malcolmw wrote:
The Law of Unintended Consequences will mean that the most likely outcome will be more driving by youngsters with no licence, tax, insurance ...

...no lessons...


Why can't these people propose something clever, like motorway tuition (with use of a graduated licence such that those with no access to motorways won't be entitled to use of them - much like an automatic licence).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 16:12 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland
I think we should have an age when they make the transition from youngsters to adults. So they can get married, join the army, have sex, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, drive a vehicle, etc..

18 would seem a sensible time in anyone's life for this time happen.

Now, on to whether this will have any impact on road casualties, I think we know the answer to that one.

I think I had aabout a dozen lessons when I learned to drive. In 1997 my wife had about 30 and my niece has just had 60-odd to pass her test.

Do all youngsters go mad behind the wheel at some stage? I think so. I know I did. I'm fortunate that the only "offs" I had were when I was driving alone and both occasions these were within the speed limit but too fast for the prevailing conditions. Bout recognise my parents could have had the knock at the door at some point with me.

I think we should be looking more at preventing young people from carrying other young peopele in the car, possible restrictions on bhp/tonne(while recognising that any vehicle doing 30mph into a tree is going to cause damage) and pushing COAST (as often stated by Wildie/Mad Moggie/In Gear).

We also need more TrafPol on our roads to police them sensibly, targetting danger and risky behaviour.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 16:28 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30
Posts: 144
Location: Cleveland
Link to This is London

Driving age 'rising to 18' with tough new test designed to slash road carnage

The driving age will effectively rise to 18 in a major overhaul of how young people are prepared for the road.

Learners will still be granted their provisional licence from 17, but will need a year to pass a beefed-up test.

It means the minimum age at which a new driver could realistically go out on his or her own will be 18.

The move follows a Daily Mail campaign, backed by the insurance industry, road safety campaigners and motoring groups, to raise the formal driving age to 18 to help cut accidents caused by young drivers.

Road safety figures show that one in five new drivers aged between 17 to 19 crash within a year of passing their test. But for 17-year-olds the risk reduces by 43 per cent after the first year of driving.

Tough test: Young drivers will be expected to gain 500 hours of road experience before being given a driving licence in a bid to cut the number of accidents caused by young drivers

The new structure, to be unveiled by ministers in a consultation document published in the New Year, will put more emphasis on issues such as avoiding reckless behaviour, hazard perception, "over-confidence and other failings".

Candidates will have to master key skills of the current driving test - including parallel parking, reversing around a corner and the three-point turn - before they are allowed to take a new practical L-test, which they must pass to secure their full licence. Each mastered key skill will be signed off by a qualified instructor in a log book.

This will leave the examiner in the driving test to concentrate on more 'safety-critical' issues, such as dealing with junctions, roundabouts and moving traffic.

The test, which will be harder than the current one, will include elements such as driving on a dual carriageway and turning right at a busy junction.

The learning process will also aim to give candidates experience of 'real world' driving on high-speed roads and at night.

Learner drivers will spend up to 500 hours mastering the key skills.

Experts say candidates currently spend 100 hours behind the wheel before taking their tests.

"This way the Government can effectively raise the driving age to 18 without having to specifically legislate,' Whitehall sources said.

"It will take most people at least a year to be signed off by a qualified instructor on all the skills they need to master before taking the tougher L-test."

A few drivers "with the skills of a Lewis Hamilton" may qualify to take the practical test, and secure a full licence, in less than a year, say Whitehall insiders. But they will be the exception rather than the rule.

The campaign to restrict young drivers – which also calls for tougher sentences for those who cause fatal crashes – follows a moving plea from Elizabeth Davidson, whose 26-year-old daughter was killed last year by a teenage driver.

Margaret Davidson's car was hit by 19-year-old Nolan Haworth at 70mph in a 50mph zone as he raced to court, while banned, to answer a charge of affray.

In September last year he was jailed for just four years after pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving.

During the trial, Mrs Davidson moved the judge to tears by describing the devastation to her life caused by the death of her daughter, a doctor.

The restructuring of the driving test system will apply to all two million candidates a year of all ages.

The consultation will look at whether to insist on a given number of compulsory lessons with a qualified instructor.

Affordability will be a key issue, with those from poorer backgrounds currently often relying on free tuition from family and friends.

MPs have called for a 'zero' drink-drive limit of 20g per 100ml of blood for novice drivers - similar to that for air crews - compared to the current standard drink-drive limit of 80mg/100ml.

The Government says it will look at this under a separate review of the drink-drive limit.

But ministers see difficulties enforcing it as police would not be sure which limit applied to drivers they stopped.

MPs have also called on the Government to prohibit new drivers from carrying passengers aged ten to 20 between 11pm and 5pm.

The Government rejected this in 2002. But it will consider again the 'practicality and likely effectiveness' of the measures.

Recent research has shown that young drivers' brains are 'too immature' to drive safely.

The frontal lobe - which controls emotion, risk-taking and decision making - is not fully developed until the age of 25.

And studies of driver attitudes show young motorists are more likely to drive for the pleasure of thrill-seeking, and feelings of pride, power and confidence.

The road safety charity Brake said that raising from 17 to 18 the age at which young people can take their driving test would significantly reduce the 'disproportionate' number of young driver deaths and injuries on UK roads. It said road crashes are the biggest killer of those aged 15 to 24, with 23 young drivers and passengers killed or seriously injured every day.

Nick Starling of the Association of British Insurers said: "We must get away from the pass now, learn later culture too many youngsters have.

"Every day 140 drivers pass their driving test with less than six months' driving experience. It is this lack of experience that makes young drivers so vulnerable.

"Helping them gain experience of driving in different road conditions, such as at night and on wet roads, as part of the learning process will make them safer drivers, and reduce the tragic waste of young lives on our roads."

According to the ABI, male drivers aged 17-20 are 10 times as likely to be killed or seriously injured as more experienced motorists.

Half of serious accidents involving young drivers occur at night.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 17:12 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
Tell me, have numerical limits ever solved anything?

I don't even need to explain how stupid speed limits are.

Everyone matures at a different age. You can't put a number on it.

Make it illegal to have sex under 16 and people who aren't 16 keep it a secret from their parents. :roll:

The driving test should be able to prove whether someone is fit and capable to drive a vehicle on the road. Why should it matter if they are 14 or 40 if they have proven that they can do it?

If you think that age limits help anything think "Maurine from Driving School"...

Ok, now you can stop thinking about her. ;)

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 17:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
ipsg.glf wrote:
Learner drivers will spend up to 500 hours mastering the key skills.

I can just see all the unintended consequences racking up:
  • even more unlicensed driving by the young
  • growing difficulties for employers wishing to recruit qualified drivers
  • more and more professional drivers in the country coming from Eastern Europe - with inevitable safety consequences
  • employers needing drivers having to pay for their training themselves
  • driving tuition becoming a standard part of the "golden hello" for graduates taken on by major firms
Does nobody ever consider the wider social consequences of such changes?

The government have to assess all policy proposals against criteria of "social exclusion". Surely this will lead to massive social exclusion by increasingly making legal driving a privilege of the well-off middle classes.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 17:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 20:54
Posts: 225
Location: West Midlands
ipsg.glf wrote:
Link to This is London

Margaret Davidson's car was hit by 19-year-old Nolan Haworth at 70mph in a 50mph zone as he raced to court, while banned, to answer a charge of affray.

...so the answer to someone who is breaking the law in at least three different ways (speeding, driving whilst banned and driving whilst uninsured) is to introduce even more laws. :roll:

They are trying to fix the wrong problem! :x

mb


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 17:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
500 hours? Better remortgage the house.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 18:47 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
A further consideration is that it will greatly increase the attractiveness of 17-year-olds riding mopeds, which have a far worse accident rate than cars.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 18:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
mpaton2004 wrote:
500 hours? Better remortgage the house.


Agreed.

I'm glad to see the test will be stricter, and include learners needing to display skills on dual carriageway (but no motorway mentioned?) and night driving. But then it's very disappointing to see a figure for hours needed.

Some people have are good drivers by design, some are terrible and should never get a license.

As an aside

"reversing round a corner"

why the hell is this still in the learning/test sequence? Never once since passing the test have I been in a situation where I needed to, or thought it safe to, reverse around a fucking corner?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.018s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]